Speaker 1: You're listening to Comedy Central. Hey, welcome to Beyond the Scenes.
Speaker 1: This is the Daily Show podcast that goes a little
Speaker 1: deeper into segments and topics that originally aired on the show.
Speaker 1: You know what the Daily Show is, but we give
Speaker 1: you a little extra more than what you thought. You
Speaker 1: know what this podcast is. This podcast is like when
Speaker 1: you go to the strip club. Right, You go to
Speaker 1: the strip club to be entertained and eat a little
Speaker 1: bit of food, and then on the way out of
Speaker 1: the strip club, one of the dancers pulls you to
Speaker 1: the side and says, if you really miss her, you
Speaker 1: should just call her. It's never too late to try
Speaker 1: love again. That's what this podcast is. Today, we're talking
Speaker 1: about something that might be a little more serious than
Speaker 1: what advice you get at the strip club. We're talking
Speaker 1: about the Supreme Court. Give me a clip for the post.
Speaker 1: Fifty years ever since the Supreme Court decided Rove, where
Speaker 1: women in America have had the right to choose whether
Speaker 1: or not to have an abortion, and now it looks
Speaker 1: like that rights is going away. While many people are
Speaker 1: upset about the decision itself, some people are only upset
Speaker 1: that we're hearing about the decision This is as corrosive
Speaker 1: as destructive to the Supreme Court as we've ever seen.
Speaker 1: This is an insurrection against the Supreme Court. It is
Speaker 1: not up to a law clerk to decide when the
Speaker 1: decision of the Court will be announced. They should have
Speaker 1: never happened. They should build and make decisions in private
Speaker 1: and secret, and then once they're ready to decide and
Speaker 1: let the country know how that they have ruled, let
Speaker 1: it out. Yeah, yeah, I like that a lot. I
Speaker 1: understand why these people are upset. You heard what they said.
Speaker 1: The conservative majority on this Court has a fundamental right
Speaker 1: to choose when they want to release a decision into
Speaker 1: the world. Imagine having some random person violate your privacy
Speaker 1: and make that choice for you. Who would do such
Speaker 1: a thing. The newest Supreme Court term began in early October,
Speaker 1: and today I've got three guests to help me break
Speaker 1: down where we are with everything going on in the Scotis.
Speaker 1: First up, we have Daily show supervising producer and writer
Speaker 1: who happens to be a former attorney juven praying, how
Speaker 1: you doing, Jube's good to see you. I'm doing great, Roy,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you so much. By the way, from
Speaker 1: my first appearance, of this podcast to give me this
Speaker 1: trip club into I really appreciate that. Yeah, I'm really
Speaker 1: sorry that I had a little bit of a meltdown
Speaker 1: there at the top of the show. Love is an illusion.
Speaker 1: Juven never get that. Next, we have the editor of
Speaker 1: Scotis Blog, a corner of the Internet where you can
Speaker 1: read up on what's happening with the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: they tell you everything that's going on. It's all right
Speaker 1: out there in the open and maybe it'll help you
Speaker 1: Asia Civics Test. James Romosa. James, welcome to Beyond the Scenes.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for having me, happy to be
Speaker 1: here and finally joining us. The A c o Use
Speaker 1: Legal director and fun fact, he taught both Huben and
Speaker 1: James at George Town Law David Cole, Welcome to your
Speaker 1: class reunion. But first I have to ask before we start, David,
Speaker 1: who was the better student James as Huban. I think
Speaker 1: I gotta get I think I gotta give them both
Speaker 1: a pluses just my transcript. I gotta be honest and
Speaker 1: just retrospectively by the fact that they've made it all
Speaker 1: the way to this podcast A plus. Yes, fair enough,
Speaker 1: fair enough. Well, then, since you are the professor, I'll
Speaker 1: start with you, David, you know, and Juban James. You
Speaker 1: don't feel free to jump in, but be respectful to
Speaker 1: your professor, right and shut your gass up. The uh.
Speaker 1: The last Supreme Court session, David, you know, it wrapped
Speaker 1: up last June, and it was pretty contentious. It was
Speaker 1: a lot of you know, back and forth on a
Speaker 1: lot of cases that don't necessarily find their way to
Speaker 1: the top of the media cycle. Us to start the
Speaker 1: whole conversation off, what were some of the bigger cases
Speaker 1: and issues that were decided during the last go decision.
Speaker 1: It was a brutal term, you know. Trump. President Trump
Speaker 1: appointed three justices to the Court during his time, and
Speaker 1: he promised that they would overturn Roe versus Wade, and
Speaker 1: sure enough, UH. In their first full term on the court,
Speaker 1: they took a case that they did not have to take, UH,
Speaker 1: and they threw out a constitutional right that every woman
Speaker 1: of childbearing age has grown up depending upon really a
Speaker 1: remarkable decision in Dobbs. But they didn't stop there. They
Speaker 1: then went on to strike down a New York law
Speaker 1: that says, you know, you can't carry a gun on
Speaker 1: the streets of Manhattan unless you have a reason for
Speaker 1: carrying a gun on the streets of Manhattan, and you've
Speaker 1: got to get a permit for doing so. Over a
Speaker 1: century old law struck it down under the the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: and then they essentially turned the religion clauses on their head.
Speaker 1: It used to be the religion clauses required separation of
Speaker 1: church and state. But in two cases last term, the
Speaker 1: court held a football coach high school football coach had
Speaker 1: the constitutional right to pray publicly at the end of
Speaker 1: every game, uh in contrary contrary to his school's direction. Uh.
Speaker 1: And in a case out of Maine, they held that
Speaker 1: the state of Maine was constitutionally required to fund religious
Speaker 1: um school private schools if they're funding secular private schools.
Speaker 1: So you know, where the Constitution used to say separation
Speaker 1: of church and state, Now the Constitution requires the state
Speaker 1: to support religion and requires the state to allow its
Speaker 1: officials to pray publicly at you know, at the football
Speaker 1: game of all places. So you know, and and and
Speaker 1: in all those cases they overturned you know, years of precedent,
Speaker 1: fifty years of precedent, and dobbs a hundred years of
Speaker 1: precedent with respect to the New York gun carrying law
Speaker 1: and decades of precedent on the religion class cases. Okay,
Speaker 1: so religion, women guns. Thank god the environment wasn't caught
Speaker 1: up in Yeah, yeah, I missed that one. I missed
Speaker 1: that one. So yeah, yeah, So so what about that
Speaker 1: man had had? They had to reverse the precedent on
Speaker 1: the environment, give us that constitutional it does not have
Speaker 1: the right to exist. It turns out, amazing, amazing. It
Speaker 1: turns out the e p A is unconstituted. Now, they
Speaker 1: did not rule that the Environmental Protection Agency is unconstitutional,
Speaker 1: but they did rule that the Environmental Protection Agency did
Speaker 1: not have the authority to require the plants that produce
Speaker 1: electric power for the grid to shift from coal power
Speaker 1: plants to other more green sources of energy. They made
Speaker 1: up a new doctrine called the major questions doctrine, which
Speaker 1: essentially says, if we don't like what a statute says,
Speaker 1: we'll say it's really important and it's major, and unless
Speaker 1: Congress has expressly provided precisely what the agency should do,
Speaker 1: will say, the agency has no power. And you know,
Speaker 1: Congress is essentially moribund these days. It can't really pass
Speaker 1: and virtually anything. So the notion that it has to
Speaker 1: kind of uh legislate in detail in order to allow
Speaker 1: us to deal with things like climate change is a
Speaker 1: recipe for disaster. Okay, So as I attempt to not
Speaker 1: pull my hair out at everything that you just said, James,
Speaker 1: all of these things that David was just talking about
Speaker 1: went through one Supreme Court session busy year. Say like,
Speaker 1: how does all of this like not get the same
Speaker 1: level of public attention or has it been getting exposure
Speaker 1: and we the public have just been too busy watching
Speaker 1: Dancing with the starars in the Kardashians and not paying attention. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: it's interesting. I think that the Dobbs decision took up
Speaker 1: so much oxygen from the room that people were so
Speaker 1: laser focused on that case, and to some extent that
Speaker 1: the guns case as well that David talked about, that
Speaker 1: some of these other cases about religion, about climate change,
Speaker 1: and then there were others as well that we haven't
Speaker 1: even touched on. Uh, would have been blockbuster cases that
Speaker 1: would have gotten massive coverage in any other term, But
Speaker 1: because you know, the abortion decision was so monumental, you know,
Speaker 1: some of these other cases with also far reaching implications,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe gut pushed under the radar, you know,
Speaker 1: a little a little bit. But I think if you
Speaker 1: look at all of the cases and the totality of
Speaker 1: the term, what you see is a court that is
Speaker 1: choosing to take up cases in order to move the
Speaker 1: law in a new direction and acquai conservative direction. As
Speaker 1: David said, the Court has a lot of discretion in
Speaker 1: which cases it wants to hear. There's no need necessarily
Speaker 1: to hear the abortion case. There's an affirmative action case
Speaker 1: we'll probably talk about later that there's really no need
Speaker 1: for the Court to take up that case, but the
Speaker 1: Court decided that they're going to hear it, and just
Speaker 1: by virtue of taking up basically the most divisive issues
Speaker 1: in American life, in American policy, the Court is really
Speaker 1: intervening in in in these in these debates in ways
Speaker 1: that it doesn't necessarily have to, but reflects the the
Speaker 1: ideological commitments of the Court's new members well. And also
Speaker 1: I would say it reflects a lack of kind of
Speaker 1: judgment and modesty. I mean, when you have three new
Speaker 1: justices put on a court by a president who expressly
Speaker 1: and publicly proclaims I'm putting these people on the court
Speaker 1: to overturn Roll versus Wade. I think, you know, a
Speaker 1: modest court would say, well, let's not you know, number
Speaker 1: one on the agenda overturning Roe versus Way, because then
Speaker 1: it looks like we're just doing the president's bidding. We're
Speaker 1: not acting like judges. Uh. And so you know, I
Speaker 1: think most people predicted that the court would not overturn
Speaker 1: roversus way. It would maybe limited at the edges. But boy,
Speaker 1: as soon as you you know, we we we heard
Speaker 1: the argument in that case, it was clear they were
Speaker 1: they were going for it, and they have not slowed down,
Speaker 1: as as James indicated in the cases that they're going
Speaker 1: to hear this term. So with juven on the show, now,
Speaker 1: I don't know, you know how he was as a
Speaker 1: student there with you, David, but Juven well a plus.
Speaker 1: So I think we can assume that's accurate. And in
Speaker 1: every respect, I don't think we need to We don't
Speaker 1: need to take any further into he made He made
Speaker 1: a great He made a great joke in every class.
Speaker 1: You know, I wasn't trying to I was just trying
Speaker 1: to answer the questions. Unfortunately, juven is what I believe
Speaker 1: to be one of the emotional cores in the writer's wing,
Speaker 1: and that as a writer on the daily shows you've
Speaker 1: been you know, and as a performer, we have to
Speaker 1: take in a lot of the worst news all the
Speaker 1: time and then figure out a way to make it funny.
Speaker 1: And sometimes you have to do that without feeling. But
Speaker 1: juven somehow has mastered with the art of feeling empathy
Speaker 1: within the story and making sure that that heart it's
Speaker 1: on it within the piece in addition to the comedy.
Speaker 1: So like, so as you've been like, what are what
Speaker 1: are some of the conversations that you and Trevor had,
Speaker 1: you know, as a team, because I'm not always over
Speaker 1: there because y'all send me to Atlanta to be in
Speaker 1: a kayak and sneakers because nobody told me that I
Speaker 1: needed kayak shoes and I was wearing I good at anyway,
Speaker 1: it was right, It was funny that on the back
Speaker 1: of it was a very good piece. When you and
Speaker 1: Trevor and the rest of the writing team were reacting
Speaker 1: to Roe v. Wade and that whole leak and its
Speaker 1: eventual overturn, how do you all manage striking the right
Speaker 1: tone because the country was angry and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of times when people don't want to necessarily laugh. But
Speaker 1: how do you all maintain the balance of empathy versus
Speaker 1: anger versus humor when you're dealing with all of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions. You know, it's like what you were
Speaker 1: saying earlier, you really just have to channel all the
Speaker 1: jokes through the emotions. And by doing that, by honoring
Speaker 1: the emotion, it gives you the permission, both both in
Speaker 1: your own um psyche and also to the audience to
Speaker 1: make the jokes. You can't pretend that people are not
Speaker 1: upset about this, You can't pretend this is not a
Speaker 1: change and just make jokes sort of divorced from those feelings.
Speaker 1: You'll you'll come off either you know, um cruel or indifferent,
Speaker 1: and the jokes won't have that extra um punch to them.
Speaker 1: So the challenge I think as a community writer, especially
Speaker 1: for topical stuff, is identifying what it is that is
Speaker 1: making you feel whatever you're feeling about an issue, and
Speaker 1: then articulating that emotion on the way to a joke.
Speaker 1: And with the way we did that with the with
Speaker 1: the abortion, with the leak of the obscision and eventually
Speaker 1: the decision itself, was you know, especially with a lot
Speaker 1: of the writers who were feeling very disappointed and very
Speaker 1: angry with not just the Justices, but also with the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party apparatus that was more interested in fundraising off
Speaker 1: of this than doing anything. In the months between the
Speaker 1: league and the decision to use their power to do
Speaker 1: something about it. You know, the senators like um like
Speaker 1: Collins and Mansion who were shocked, just absolutely shocked that
Speaker 1: they had been tricked by the Justices uh into voting
Speaker 1: for them when they were assured so firmly that Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade was a precedent. One of the jokes we had
Speaker 1: about that was that why does Susan Collins, Why is
Speaker 1: she never tricked into doing anything good? It seems like
Speaker 1: the only people on the planet who didn't realize what
Speaker 1: was happening with Joe Mansion and Susan Collins, who now
Speaker 1: say that they were tricked tricked, I tell you by
Speaker 1: these judges. And by the way, why does Susan Collins
Speaker 1: never get tricked into improving healthcare or solving climate change?
Speaker 1: Huh yeah, She's never like, oh damn it, I accidentally
Speaker 1: canceled student loan debt. Get it together, Susan, you just
Speaker 1: will don't come to you know, a comedy show, you know,
Speaker 1: looking to not laugh. If you are not providing those jokes,
Speaker 1: then you're not You're just opening and you can go
Speaker 1: anywhere to to find opinions. That's the challenge of of
Speaker 1: comedy writing is shiling that emotion into jokes UM that
Speaker 1: resonate with those feelings. And I think you know, especially
Speaker 1: it helps with UM. We had we had this delight
Speaker 1: to come on after UM the decision was leaked and
Speaker 1: then was was overthrown to talk about her feelings that
Speaker 1: she was doing through weather report about all the parts
Speaker 1: of the country that they're gonna be devastated by this,
Speaker 1: that you're gonna see all the influx of people trying
Speaker 1: to go like a hurricane into other states to get abortions. Now,
Speaker 1: let's take a look at what's happening along the coast,
Speaker 1: particularly in New York and California, where there is a
Speaker 1: powerful surge of desperate people flooding into your states. So
Speaker 1: blow up those air mattresses and fill up that gas tank.
Speaker 1: Because Tammy from Tulsa is moving in doing jokes through
Speaker 1: the weather um while very being very clear what she's
Speaker 1: actually taught about. I think builds up a very funny
Speaker 1: tension um that by the end of it, when Trevor's like,
Speaker 1: this isn't really about the weather, and she's like, no,
Speaker 1: it's not fun Samulito on anybody who tells us what
Speaker 1: women can do with their bodies, that kind of releases that.
Speaker 1: And there's a there's a rhythm to this and a
Speaker 1: music to it that you need to to have and
Speaker 1: you can only have that by going through the emotions
Speaker 1: that you're feeling. The real weather event is happening over
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court. Now. Our storm centers have been
Speaker 1: tracking this for years, so we knew this acid rain
Speaker 1: was coming, but that doesn't mean it still doesn't burn
Speaker 1: the hell out of our twats. So that's the weather.
Speaker 1: Back to you, Trevor, I think so, Frank, thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you very much, Daisy. But clearly that wasn't about
Speaker 1: the weather. No, no, it wasn't sam Alito and anyone
Speaker 1: else who tells a woman what to do with their
Speaker 1: own body. Here's here's a question for the three of you,
Speaker 1: what changed within this within the ideology of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Because the thing is that you know, the court since
Speaker 1: the Savanties has been majority Republican appointed. That's not a
Speaker 1: new thing, but it seems like the decisions that the
Speaker 1: Court has been making are more aggressively conservative. What do
Speaker 1: you think was the match that lit the fuse on
Speaker 1: this kind of change in ideology and adjudication. Well, it's
Speaker 1: true that the Court has been majority Republican appointed for
Speaker 1: many decades, but you know, until recently, Judge, there was
Speaker 1: no ideological purity test for for justices, or at least
Speaker 1: it certainly wasn't as as extreme as it is now.
Speaker 1: And so former justices like Santra Day O'Connor and John
Speaker 1: Paul Stevens and David Suitor these were all Republican appointed offices,
Speaker 1: but these were turned out to be liberal to moderate
Speaker 1: justices on the Supreme Court. That no longer happens now.
Speaker 1: Republican presidents are quite certain that every justice they appoint
Speaker 1: will be a hardcore conservative and will sort of um uh,
Speaker 1: you know, take consistent ideological ideological positions with the Republican parties,
Speaker 1: policy preferences, and the legal views of the federal society. Um.
Speaker 1: And there are many reasons for that. There's been, you know,
Speaker 1: an emphatic movement on the right in particular to support
Speaker 1: a legal conservative establishment and appoint people within that movement
Speaker 1: to lower core justices who have eventually arrived to the
Speaker 1: ranks and get vetted and become the top candidates for
Speaker 1: justice slots under Republican presidents. I think that's right. I think,
Speaker 1: you know, it's also you know, the the right likes
Speaker 1: to criticize the left for being woke, but the right
Speaker 1: is very rigid in terms of what kinds of legal
Speaker 1: views are going to be acceptable within the power uh,
Speaker 1: you know structure that is, um, you know, at the
Speaker 1: top of which is the Federalist Society, an organization that
Speaker 1: started actually when I was a law student, but has
Speaker 1: become incredibly powerful, and to which President Trump essentially assigned
Speaker 1: the job of identifying judges and justices. UM. And the
Speaker 1: other thing that I think that has changed, which is
Speaker 1: really significant, is that, um, you no longer have to
Speaker 1: get over a filibuster to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 1: So until the you know, the end of the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: essentially every judge, every federal judge, had to be approved
Speaker 1: by sixty senators, which meant that you had to get
Speaker 1: some support from the other party. The Democrats got rid
Speaker 1: of the filibuster when the Republicans started using it across
Speaker 1: the board just to be obstructionist. They got rid of
Speaker 1: it for for lower federal court judges. But this but
Speaker 1: the Republicans got rid of it for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Once you do that, you got fifty votes in the center.
Speaker 1: You don't have to, uh look for someone who's moderate,
Speaker 1: you don't have to look for someone who has an
Speaker 1: open mind. You don't have to try to appease the
Speaker 1: other side. And uh, you know that, and Trump just
Speaker 1: you know, ran with that, and so Trump, I just
Speaker 1: want to make sure we make that clear for Supreme
Speaker 1: Court just because but but the Democrats got rid of
Speaker 1: it for judges, but because it had been abused um
Speaker 1: by the Republican party for a long time, it was
Speaker 1: used sparingly, and then the Republicans just started using it
Speaker 1: across the board, absolutely regardless of who Obama put up.
Speaker 1: And so then you know that that led Harry to say,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get rid of it for for for district
Speaker 1: court and Court of Appeals judges, not for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: But then McConnell got rid of it for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: You know, it actually is uh interesting to me, is
Speaker 1: is the the the idea that the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: that the legal system in general has always been just
Speaker 1: an extension of politics um by by other means, there's
Speaker 1: always been like a critique of the left. But I
Speaker 1: feel like I'm thinking about this with something you said earlier, David,
Speaker 1: that it feels like this idea that that the courts
Speaker 1: are just simply another part of the political project seems
Speaker 1: to have now been adopted by almost everybody in the system.
Speaker 1: Now there's no longer any perception that this is a
Speaker 1: court that has any legitimacy or role to play outside
Speaker 1: of a political project. And I wonder, to the extent
Speaker 1: that you were saying that even the with Congress also
Speaker 1: driven down to gridlock, if this was necessarily going to
Speaker 1: bring the Court into a role like this, or if
Speaker 1: this is just part part of the larger um collapse
Speaker 1: of institutions into this kind of like ever grinding political
Speaker 1: culture war that uh seems to have have been accelerating the
Speaker 1: last like twenty thirty years. Yeah, No, I think it
Speaker 1: is um the latter. I think it's really hard for
Speaker 1: any institution to stay above the fray when the country
Speaker 1: is so divided, so it makes everyone, you know, sort
Speaker 1: of a sort themselves into into into the into one
Speaker 1: camp or the other, and if you try to maintain
Speaker 1: something in the middle, you just get you know, killed
Speaker 1: by both sides. So that there's there, it's it's partly that,
Speaker 1: you know, I do think still that the ideal is
Speaker 1: important and that a lot of judges, including some justices,
Speaker 1: uphold this ideal, which is that you know, they're not
Speaker 1: partisan hacks. They're supposed to actually apply the law. They're
Speaker 1: supposed to be guided by the law. They're they're they
Speaker 1: are not allowed to do as members of Congress can
Speaker 1: just just vote party line down the line um. But
Speaker 1: last term they didn't act that way, and their approval
Speaker 1: rating across the country has dropped to which is probably
Speaker 1: above Congress, but it is at the lowest the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court approval rating has been I believe, you know, since
Speaker 1: we've done approval ratings of the Supreme Court, and that's
Speaker 1: because I think people see exactly what you're talking about
Speaker 1: doing that they they you know that the court is
Speaker 1: not acting like a court. It's not doing what you're
Speaker 1: supposed to do. And when you're not, you know, when
Speaker 1: you don't have to run for reelection, when there's no
Speaker 1: democratic constraint on you. You know, your legitimacy turns on
Speaker 1: acting like a court being bound by law. When you
Speaker 1: throw out a fifty year old constitutional precedent simply because
Speaker 1: you know, President Trump got three appointees on the court,
Speaker 1: just exercise your muscles to do that. People say, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, this is not a court anymore, and so
Speaker 1: we're not gonna give it the difference that it would
Speaker 1: otherwise be due. And that's that's a very dangerous thing,
Speaker 1: I think for this society, because you do need an
Speaker 1: institution that can resolve differences that people will accept as legitimate.
Speaker 1: And uh, you know they're they're I think they're putting
Speaker 1: that into jeopardy. After the break, I want to dig
Speaker 1: a little bit more into exactly that, and let's discuss
Speaker 1: what this means for the future of the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and what means for the future of lawmaking. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back after the break. This is beyond the scenes.
Speaker 1: Beyond the scenes. We are back. We are talking about
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court of the United States, or as I
Speaker 1: call it in the barbershops, scot is just this is
Speaker 1: just in a side James, you got the scot this blog,
Speaker 1: and you lay everything out week the week on what's
Speaker 1: going on in the court. Why don't the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: have a channel? They need a like we got Court
Speaker 1: TV and we'd be watching all of these state and
Speaker 1: local cases. We'll need that ship. The Supreme Court needs
Speaker 1: a camera now so we can see this ship happening
Speaker 1: and unfolding in real time. I could not agree more.
Speaker 1: Has been advocating for a greater transparency for for quite
Speaker 1: a while. I don't think it's going to happen. The
Speaker 1: Justices have long been resistant to any cameras. They don't
Speaker 1: even allow photography, never mind live video. Now, there has
Speaker 1: been one tiny incremental step in favor of transparency, which
Speaker 1: is that during the pandemic, when the Court moved to
Speaker 1: remote arguments, it started making live audio streams available of
Speaker 1: its arguments. And I think you know, it was actually
Speaker 1: like a real boon for education and transparency by the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. And the Court has decided to keep that
Speaker 1: in place even when they went back into the courtroom, um,
Speaker 1: which I was. I was happy about that, so everyone
Speaker 1: can listen to arguments live, at least in an audio fashion.
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be quite some time before
Speaker 1: we actually get get video in there. Yeah, yeah, well
Speaker 1: I love the transparency. As you been, you took a
Speaker 1: lot of political science classes, and you know, and you know,
Speaker 1: in a party science class and a government class, we
Speaker 1: learned there are three branches of government. There's a legislative branch,
Speaker 1: there's the executive branch, judge judy branch, the judicial branch.
Speaker 1: I thought the judicial branch has something to judge more
Speaker 1: and more? Does it's gonna be next? Not mine? If
Speaker 1: he wins? Real? Actually yeah, it was to be known
Speaker 1: as a judge judy. She'd have to take a major
Speaker 1: pay cut to move. I don't know if you do it,
Speaker 1: do it conversations judy making that money. The judicial branch,
Speaker 1: now we know what they do. They sit there and
Speaker 1: they try to make sure that the laws are interpreted properly.
Speaker 1: But it feels like the Supreme Court is attempting to
Speaker 1: make new laws. Is that what you're feeling right now
Speaker 1: as you've been in terms of what's going on with
Speaker 1: a lot of the precedent being reversed. I'll tell you, Roy,
Speaker 1: when you go to law school, you learn that there's
Speaker 1: five extra branches of government that really make all the laws.
Speaker 1: And it's not something most people know about, but you
Speaker 1: also have you know, the judicial later, the execuary, all
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff. It's a lot more, um real
Speaker 1: than than the stuff you learn and you know in
Speaker 1: elementary school and public school. Thank you shut up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're not gonna too the head. No. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: that's always kind of been the critique. I guess that
Speaker 1: you can't really interpret the law without changing it, you know,
Speaker 1: to a certa extent, that the judiciary has always had
Speaker 1: that that lawmaking power just by virtue of being able
Speaker 1: to interpret the law and thereby changing who it applies
Speaker 1: to and who doesn't. And I it feels like the
Speaker 1: history of the Supreme Court has been one of which
Speaker 1: justices feel comfortable using that power and to what extent
Speaker 1: they do. Whether the court of that era tends to
Speaker 1: be one that is UM restrained in certain areas and
Speaker 1: it's more active in other areas. UM. I do think
Speaker 1: you could you argue, for example, UM, the warrant Court
Speaker 1: was much more in the realm of active lawmaking with
Speaker 1: respective criminal justice over the sixties, UM, and we are
Speaker 1: now in a different era where the Court is much
Speaker 1: more active with respect to UM issues. That that that
Speaker 1: the conservative movement cares a lot more about gun rights
Speaker 1: religious liberty rights, as you know, unbalanced to UM public
Speaker 1: rights opposed to those religious liberty rights. I'm very happy
Speaker 1: to uh to see if David and James agree with me.
Speaker 1: But it feels like that tension between UM a judiciary
Speaker 1: that wants to UM that that cannot help but create
Speaker 1: law just by interpreting law is one that always exists,
Speaker 1: and it's just a matter of like, wish just this,
Speaker 1: feel comfortable using that power in what area? I think
Speaker 1: that's right, although UM, you know, one of the key
Speaker 1: things about being a judge, one of the key constraints
Speaker 1: on being a judge is that you are bound by precedent. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: you have to take the cases that were decided before
Speaker 1: you and apply them to a new circumstance, and there's
Speaker 1: room for discretion in how they're applied to the new circumstances,
Speaker 1: but you are bound by those prior precedents and you
Speaker 1: have to try to make sense of them in a
Speaker 1: consistent way unless you decide to overturn those prior presses.
Speaker 1: And when you'll overturn those prior precedents, then you're not
Speaker 1: bound by anything. And that's what you have with the
Speaker 1: case like Dobbs, that's what you have with those religion cases,
Speaker 1: that's what you have, I think with the gun cases
Speaker 1: and this term, the Court has taken a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of cases where the argument that's being made to them
Speaker 1: is reject prior precedent UH and interpret the Constitution the
Speaker 1: way we want you to interpret the Constitution the way
Speaker 1: it never has been interpreted before, but to obstruct the
Speaker 1: ability of other branches to extend rights UH and protection
Speaker 1: to disadvantage groups. So the war in court didn't you know,
Speaker 1: did create a lot of new law, but it was
Speaker 1: seeking to expand rights for people, to expand protection for
Speaker 1: the disadvantaged, for those who are uh, you know, charged
Speaker 1: in criminal cases, make sure they have a fair, fair process.
Speaker 1: And like what the arguments now are the ego Protection
Speaker 1: Clause blocks state and private schools from using affirmative action
Speaker 1: to try to lift disadvantaged groups up and to create
Speaker 1: integrated and diverse UH communities. They're arguing that the Indian
Speaker 1: Child Ware Welfare Act, which is a law that Congress
Speaker 1: passed to try to keep tribal families together via it
Speaker 1: violates the ego protection Clause, and therefore Congress can't seek
Speaker 1: to protect Native American UH kids by singling them out.
Speaker 1: In a case called three oh three, create of a
Speaker 1: website designer is arguing that she has the right under
Speaker 1: the First Amendment to open a business to the public
Speaker 1: but then deny her service to same sex couples because
Speaker 1: she objects the same sex wedding. So she's invoking the
Speaker 1: Constitution to deny the Colorado Legislature's rule that a business
Speaker 1: open to the public has to serve UH has to
Speaker 1: serve everybody. So, you know, I think one of the
Speaker 1: key roles of a court is that they can protect
Speaker 1: people who can't get protected through the political process. This court,
Speaker 1: you know, this term, may turn that on its head
Speaker 1: and use the Constitution as a as a barrier to
Speaker 1: other branches protecting disadvantaged groups. Can we course correct this
Speaker 1: at all, Like, is there a way for the court
Speaker 1: to re legitimize itself or is this just the way
Speaker 1: it's going to be going forward when it comes to
Speaker 1: issues like President it's president now officially, we're just basically
Speaker 1: making new rules at this point, right, Yeah, Well, look,
Speaker 1: I would say couple of things. I think it is
Speaker 1: important to give the other side because the expansion and
Speaker 1: the restriction of rights really is often in the eye
Speaker 1: of the beholder. So it definitely is true that you
Speaker 1: can see a lot of the recent decisions as telling
Speaker 1: people's rights. But I think that people on the right
Speaker 1: would see many of the decisions as expanding rights in
Speaker 1: other ways. So the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: If you believe in our robust interpretation the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: you would see this court as expanding the rights under
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment. Similarly, if you believe that religious liberty
Speaker 1: interests are important, you would see the court's religion jurist
Speaker 1: burdens lately as expanding people's religious rights. And yes, you
Speaker 1: know those rights do you know come up against other interests.
Speaker 1: I think it's maybe a little simplistic to just say, like, oh,
Speaker 1: the war on Court was all about expanding rights and
Speaker 1: the current court just wants to curtail people's rights, because
Speaker 1: I think that they would see themselves as expanding rights.
Speaker 1: But they're just different rights, and they're there, there are
Speaker 1: different stakes. And similarly, with regard to precedents, you know,
Speaker 1: it definitely is true that's the current court is overturning
Speaker 1: a lot of precedent and quite aggressively and quickly. But again,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has always done that. Again, the Warrant
Speaker 1: Court overturned a lot of precedent. Brown versus Board of Education,
Speaker 1: one of the most iconic decisions in Supreme Court history
Speaker 1: overturned precedent. And let's not pretend that you know, if
Speaker 1: you know Kamala Harris, you know is elected to two terms,
Speaker 1: and you know points you know, four new justices. When
Speaker 1: Congress passes the court, um, you know, a newly liberal
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will almost certainly overturn the Dobbs precedent and
Speaker 1: rein try and write to abortion and so like what's
Speaker 1: good for the goose is good for the gander. I think,
Speaker 1: you know, liberal justice is to do this too. And
Speaker 1: so I think it's just important to recognize that you
Speaker 1: asked about sort of ways to create more accountability. And
Speaker 1: I think there are some things that Congress could do.
Speaker 1: They could certainly expand the size of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: There are proposals to enact term limits on the justices,
Speaker 1: which would ensure that each president gets to a point
Speaker 1: like sort of the same number of justices. And I
Speaker 1: think it's actually the most interesting for posal is to
Speaker 1: uh to do something called jurisdiction scripting, which sounds wonky,
Speaker 1: but it would basically be Congress just simply saying, um,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court just doesn't have the power to review
Speaker 1: laws in certain areas. So, for example, Congress could pass
Speaker 1: a new voting rights law and literally say the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has no power to strike this law down. That
Speaker 1: is absolutely within the power of Congress to do. So
Speaker 1: there are things that, you know, the political branches could
Speaker 1: do to check the Supreme Court, to reduce the power
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court, or or enact you know, ethical oversight.
Speaker 1: I don't see any of those proposals really getting off
Speaker 1: the ground. Biden hasn't spent a lot of political capital
Speaker 1: on these things, and with the exception of a few
Speaker 1: Democrats in Congress, I just don't see the political will
Speaker 1: to um to enact these sorts of court reforms. Okay,
Speaker 1: So let's stay right there in that pocket for a second.
Speaker 1: With regard to expanding the court versus term limit, should
Speaker 1: we do term limits, James and Juban, Should we expand
Speaker 1: Supreme Court or what are some other ways that we
Speaker 1: can return to a judiciary that's more representative of what
Speaker 1: the people think Instead of just doing what the hill
Speaker 1: they want to do or doing what the hell the
Speaker 1: political person who appointed them wants them to do. Well.
Speaker 1: I do think that if you have a judiciary that
Speaker 1: is more responsive to the public, in in the in
Speaker 1: the in the in the way of which they are
Speaker 1: appointed by presidents more regularly and not directly elected, which
Speaker 1: I think is is probably too representative of public opinion
Speaker 1: for judiciary, I think that would go a long way
Speaker 1: towards at least allowing there to be a little less
Speaker 1: pressure on the system in other elections where you know,
Speaker 1: you see Senate elections almost entirely now hinge on who
Speaker 1: will give the president the majority they need to elect
Speaker 1: Supreme Court or to appoint Supreme Court justices. You at least,
Speaker 1: you know, pull a little bit of of the venom
Speaker 1: out of that area. And I think that's by itself
Speaker 1: a good reason to to go to term limit to
Speaker 1: guarantee at least the winning president gets, you know, to
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices, and then you don't have these situations
Speaker 1: where you where you have these like bizarre imbalances where
Speaker 1: some persons get to a point and a lot some
Speaker 1: persons don't a point any and everyone is just sitting
Speaker 1: here kind of just looking at Ruth Bader Ginsburg being like, lady,
Speaker 1: do you want to do anything um in the next year,
Speaker 1: so maybe step down? Or basically how they hounded uh
Speaker 1: Brier off the court. Um. It's not funny, but there
Speaker 1: were a lot of people during near the end of
Speaker 1: Trump's term where people were going, we need you to
Speaker 1: live until Biden gets into office. And that's the kind
Speaker 1: of political thinking that you would not necessarily want your
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice to have to have to sit there
Speaker 1: and think in that element like you know, how you know,
Speaker 1: to have this politic calculation of when should I retire
Speaker 1: or or you know, how long can I you know,
Speaker 1: should I just like keep pumping the vitamins so I
Speaker 1: can last pass this particular president's term. So I think
Speaker 1: that certainly would help reduce the rest of the political
Speaker 1: um pressure on the system, or in the very least,
Speaker 1: would help a little bit more public acceptance of a
Speaker 1: court um of the decisions if they know that well,
Speaker 1: you know, if we really hate this decision, we can
Speaker 1: you know, we will have a regular chance to uh
Speaker 1: to vote injustice who might you know, mollify it or
Speaker 1: overturn it. It is It is striking what you were
Speaker 1: saying there about the logical decision, because I do feel like, again,
Speaker 1: this goes to my sense that this court is just
Speaker 1: openly um political. Now was reading um uh just as
Speaker 1: Aldo's concurrence in the gun rights decision that overturned New
Speaker 1: York's gun safety law. It read like the most Fox
Speaker 1: News poisoned grandpa screed I have ever read in a
Speaker 1: a in a Supreme Court decision, And it felt to
Speaker 1: me like this is the writing of a person who
Speaker 1: does not really who's not really trying to convince anybody.
Speaker 1: He is mad that the Descent brought up a point
Speaker 1: um that he uh disliked them bring up and wanted
Speaker 1: to just complain about. And if you are able to
Speaker 1: make unaccountable decisions democratically, you should the whole the entirety
Speaker 1: of opinions, and you should have your reasoning made very clear.
Speaker 1: And if it is getting to the point now where
Speaker 1: the justices that are able to either with shadow dockets
Speaker 1: or these kinds of opinions, just be like, you know,
Speaker 1: this is what like Tucker said, then I think like
Speaker 1: you are really heading to a situation where nobody is
Speaker 1: going to respect the court regardless of their of you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's a conservative court or liberal court. And I
Speaker 1: think that's the real poison in in terms of the
Speaker 1: court legitimacy, David, how do we get them back to
Speaker 1: a place of legitimacy where they're supposed to, you know,
Speaker 1: honored the beliefs that the electorate, the people that they're
Speaker 1: supposed to be serving. How do you honor the people
Speaker 1: that you're serving and not just yourself and your own interests.
Speaker 1: How do we hold them accountable? One thing that history
Speaker 1: shows is that, uh, over time, the Court has actually
Speaker 1: relatively rarely parted company with where the country is on
Speaker 1: the fundamental issues that are presented to the court. When
Speaker 1: it has, it has lost its legitimates. See, it has
Speaker 1: come under attack, and there's been a course correction. So,
Speaker 1: you know, the first major time was in the early
Speaker 1: part of the twentieth century, the progressive era, the depression.
Speaker 1: You know, people were hurting and and Congress and state
Speaker 1: legislatures responded by passing laws that protected workers, protected consumers
Speaker 1: from big business, and the Court kept striking those laws
Speaker 1: down as violating the rights of these corporations. Uh, and
Speaker 1: that's ultimately led FDR to propose packing the court, and
Speaker 1: he didn't actually pack the court, but the court itself corrected,
Speaker 1: uh and and and started letting all those laws protecting
Speaker 1: the rights of consumers and the rights of workers go through.
Speaker 1: And I think another time, arguably is the Warran Court,
Speaker 1: the Warrant Court to some degree got out ahead of
Speaker 1: where the country was. And for a long time thereafter
Speaker 1: there's been a sort of course correction, not a radical
Speaker 1: course correction, but a course correction. You know. I take
Speaker 1: James's point that you know, one right, you know, the
Speaker 1: rights are in the eye of the beholder to some extent,
Speaker 1: but you know, not when you're talking about um abortion.
Speaker 1: You know, that is a right that of this country
Speaker 1: enjoyed for fifty years and the court just took it away.
Speaker 1: It no longer exists, you know. And I think, you know,
Speaker 1: to say, well, you know, the on something like affirmative action,
Speaker 1: the court is gonna take away the power of UH
Speaker 1: universities to try to do justice, to try to create
Speaker 1: integrated communities, to help the little guy. Right, So yeah,
Speaker 1: you can protect the rights of the powerful against the
Speaker 1: little guy UH and say you're protecting rights, but that's
Speaker 1: not what we expect a court to do in a
Speaker 1: in a constitutional democracy. So when it doesn't do that,
Speaker 1: we have to condemn it, we have to criticize it,
Speaker 1: we have to you know, protest, you know, in the streets,
Speaker 1: we have to vote, like our rights depend on it.
Speaker 1: We have to look to alternative forums like state, uh,
Speaker 1: supreme courts and the like. But ultimately, I think the
Speaker 1: court will get the message if that happens, And the
Speaker 1: fact that it's approval rating is they're already you know,
Speaker 1: they've gotten the message in the sense of their going
Speaker 1: out and trying to make speeches saying, oh no, we
Speaker 1: don't decide cases on political basis. We're you know, we're
Speaker 1: not politicians. But you know, they're not gonna win their
Speaker 1: legitimacy back by making speeches. They're gonna win their legitimacy
Speaker 1: back by acting like judges, following precedent and not deciding
Speaker 1: cases that really go against um, you know, our our
Speaker 1: country's most fundamental values today. David, do you think that
Speaker 1: in that because of that, that it's better to leave
Speaker 1: um this question of legitisimate melency up to the individual
Speaker 1: justice that it's better to trust them to kind of
Speaker 1: like understand when they've gone out over their skis, or
Speaker 1: do you think there are any structural changes that might operate,
Speaker 1: might operate better and take that decision making out of
Speaker 1: the hands of their You know that they're only like
Speaker 1: savviness as political operators. Yeah, the fact that everyone's talking
Speaker 1: about all these sort of you know, packing the court
Speaker 1: or term limits or jurisdictions, that in and of itself
Speaker 1: sends a message to the court, hey, when we're doing
Speaker 1: something wrong, because no one was talking about that for
Speaker 1: a long time. Now everyone's talking about it, right, So
Speaker 1: that in and of itself sends a message. You know,
Speaker 1: of those reforms, I am I. I think the term
Speaker 1: limits one makes a lot more sense than than packing
Speaker 1: the court or jurisdiction stripping. But um, and I don't
Speaker 1: know that we'll ever get there, but I do think
Speaker 1: we might get there if they continue on the line
Speaker 1: that they seem to be going on. You know, it
Speaker 1: used to be you made narrow, incremental arguments, because that's
Speaker 1: the way the law developed in incremental, narrow steps. Now
Speaker 1: you're seeing advocates, advocates come in and say, hey, throw
Speaker 1: it all out and let's start over, and let's look
Speaker 1: back to you know, let's be bound by what what
Speaker 1: happened in and ignore the fact that two hundred years
Speaker 1: of history has has come in between. And you know
Speaker 1: they could do that because they've shown in cases like
Speaker 1: the religion cases, the gun cases and and the an
Speaker 1: abortion that they're willing to throw out UM, you know,
Speaker 1: to just impose new rules. And you know it's possible
Speaker 1: that they double down this term. Uh. And this is
Speaker 1: as big a term as last term with you know,
Speaker 1: the affirmative action case with UM, the very very important
Speaker 1: voting rights case that we did with the Legal Defense
Speaker 1: Fund that was argued just a couple a week or
Speaker 1: so ago. It's possibly doubled down and they double down
Speaker 1: this term on equality and deny you know, the ability
Speaker 1: to try to address equality probably the biggest problem this
Speaker 1: country faces. And if so, I think there's gonna be
Speaker 1: more and more criticism and there you know, at some
Speaker 1: point their approval rating will go below Congress. Oh well,
Speaker 1: this is great news and I appreciate you for bringing
Speaker 1: that to the podcast. Thank you very much for bad fact.
Speaker 1: It acts me to break right now because you've made
Speaker 1: me so frustrated. After the break, we're gonna bring it
Speaker 1: home and we're gonna see if the three of you
Speaker 1: can say anything nice about Scotus or give us anything
Speaker 1: optimistic to leave this podcast with. Okay, we've been hitting
Speaker 1: them for the first two breaks with gut punch. At
Speaker 1: the gut punch, I want all I went all three
Speaker 1: you to sit and thinking something nice that what you're
Speaker 1: looking forward to with the Supreme Court. You have during
Speaker 1: these commercials for mattresses or whatever they're gonna play during
Speaker 1: this commercial you have that amount of time to think
Speaker 1: of nice things to say about the Supreme Court. Okay,
Speaker 1: I like the ropes. I don't think you're all gonna
Speaker 1: do it. This is beyond the scenes. Whoop, be right back,
Speaker 1: Oh my lord. Beyond the scenes. We have been talking
Speaker 1: about the Supreme Court of the United States and all
Speaker 1: of the idd and controversial and contradictory decisions they have
Speaker 1: been making. The strip your loads away in before the break,
Speaker 1: David was so kind to remind us that now they
Speaker 1: will be trying to attack equality. Thank you so much,
Speaker 1: David for that last little bit of good news before
Speaker 1: we all had to take a screen break. What are
Speaker 1: some other things that are going to be in the
Speaker 1: scotis this term that also live under that umbrella of
Speaker 1: attacking equality. I know, at the state level, there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of gerrymandering issues. There's also been a lot
Speaker 1: of you know, equality cases in terms of denying same
Speaker 1: sex couple services and stuff like that. What else is
Speaker 1: in motion right now in this term? So I already
Speaker 1: mentioned the affirmative action, the public accommodations laws, first Amendment
Speaker 1: exemption from public acommodations laws, and and striking down the
Speaker 1: Indian child welfare But there are two big cases involving
Speaker 1: essentially jerrymandering. One involving racial jerrymandering by um, your home state,
Speaker 1: I guess of Alabama where percent of the population is
Speaker 1: African American, but only one of seven congressional districts through
Speaker 1: African Americans having a meaningful chance to elect the candidate
Speaker 1: of their choice and coincidence, and we and we challenge
Speaker 1: that under the Voting Rights Act. The A C. L
Speaker 1: U and the Legal Defense Fund challenge that, and we
Speaker 1: won unanimously before a three judge panel, including a Trump
Speaker 1: judge on that on that court because they applied existing
Speaker 1: law under the Voting Rights Act, which says, if you
Speaker 1: you know, create the districts in a way that denies
Speaker 1: a minority group a meaningful, equal opportunity to elect candidates
Speaker 1: of their choice. You have violated the Voting Rights Act.
Speaker 1: Whether you do so intentionally, whether you can prove intent
Speaker 1: or not, doesn't matter. Um Alabama appealed and they're arguing, essentially,
Speaker 1: now you've got to prove intent, which Congress was very
Speaker 1: clear that that is not what is required. And then
Speaker 1: there's another case out of North Carolina where the Republican
Speaker 1: majority in North Carolina drew a congressional map that is skewed,
Speaker 1: skewed heavily towards favoring Republicans over Democrats, are in excess
Speaker 1: of their actual um percentage of of of voters, and
Speaker 1: the North Carolina Supreme Courts said, that's that's some constitutional
Speaker 1: into the state constitution because you can't partisan gerrymander. And
Speaker 1: the North Carolina Republicans have taken that to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court and said, there's this thing called the independent state
Speaker 1: legislature theory. It's a theory because it's not a rule,
Speaker 1: it's not a doctrine. It's never been recognized before, but
Speaker 1: they've been Someone may even call it a hypothesis exactly
Speaker 1: because it hasn't even gone into a theory yet but
Speaker 1: they but they've invoked it to basically say that, you know,
Speaker 1: because the election elections clause gives the legislature the power
Speaker 1: to create the rules for congressional elections, the state legislatures
Speaker 1: are above the law. They cannot be constrained even by
Speaker 1: their own state constitutions, which after all, are the things
Speaker 1: that create them and charter them. And they can't be
Speaker 1: constrained by um state courts even where they're being constrained
Speaker 1: by state courts. To the end of equality, to the
Speaker 1: end of you know, equal representation for all, the big
Speaker 1: theme I think is real attacks on efforts of of
Speaker 1: of many branches of our government institutions in our society
Speaker 1: to to try to extend equal equality to those who
Speaker 1: have been denied it um. And if the Court stands
Speaker 1: the way that, you know, I think approval ratings will
Speaker 1: plummet still further. Do they care about their approval ratings though?
Speaker 1: I think they do. I know, you know, you said,
Speaker 1: let's say something nice about the court, so you know,
Speaker 1: I say, I'll say this. The Court doesn't have an army.
Speaker 1: That's a nice thing. That is a good thing. Right.
Speaker 1: They cannot call out the troops. They cannot they got
Speaker 1: a bunch of fenses. The clerks don't forget about that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're they're very very brave, those clerks. But but you
Speaker 1: know that, so they can't, you know, they can't at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, compel anyone to do anything
Speaker 1: unless we accept it. And so, you know, and then
Speaker 1: they know that they know that that that and that
Speaker 1: is an important, important constraint on their power. What this
Speaker 1: court is constraint has to be constrained by is legitimacy.
Speaker 1: If they give up on legitimacy, if they don't care
Speaker 1: about legitimacy, uh, you know, then they're unconstrained altogether. And
Speaker 1: I don't think we've seen that yet. James, what are
Speaker 1: you noticing over at scotus blog about how Americans are
Speaker 1: learning and interacting with all of the news that has
Speaker 1: come out of the Supreme Court and that is about
Speaker 1: to come out of the Supreme Court? Are they more engaged?
Speaker 1: Are they more active? Are they more connected to Wait
Speaker 1: a minute, what the hill is going on up to
Speaker 1: in d C. Yeah? Absolutely, we have been seeing, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a ton of engagement with the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I think that Um in particular, you know, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has always had really significant consequences on policy and
Speaker 1: um in American life. But a lot of the decisions
Speaker 1: are often like wrapped in complex jargon and are difficult
Speaker 1: for ordinary people to understand. But I think the recent
Speaker 1: decisions are like everyone understands what the concrete stakes are. Right.
Speaker 1: You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that
Speaker 1: the constitutional right to abortion doesn't exist anymore. You don't
Speaker 1: have to be a lawyer to understand that people now
Speaker 1: have more expansive rights to carry concealed weapons in public.
Speaker 1: So you know, the stakes are so clear, and people
Speaker 1: are you know, you know obviously rightfully concerns about these stakes.
Speaker 1: And so we're seeing a lot of engagement, not just
Speaker 1: you know, NSC to splog itself, but also you know,
Speaker 1: what we've really tried to do is, you know, explain
Speaker 1: what the court is doing to new audiences in new formats. So,
Speaker 1: for example, like our TikTok account has like really taken off,
Speaker 1: like sort of much my surprise. When my friend and
Speaker 1: colleague Katie Barlow all So, a former student of David's,
Speaker 1: by the way, um, when she watched that that TikTok account,
Speaker 1: I heard you ago, I was like kind of skeptical.
Speaker 1: I was like, really, the Supreme Court, you know, doctrine
Speaker 1: on on on TikTok, And actually it's become really popular,
Speaker 1: and we've seen a lot of young people, um, you know,
Speaker 1: becoming educated on the Court in a way that I
Speaker 1: don't think they otherwise. What have three things happened at
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court today, Orders to oral arguments, and d
Speaker 1: J filed its opposition to Trump in the marl Ago
Speaker 1: Documents fight. Here is a quick explainer of all of
Speaker 1: the above. Grab your negroni spagliato with prosecco in it,
Speaker 1: and let's go. I think there really is an appetite for,
Speaker 1: you know, understanding for civity, education in general, and specifically
Speaker 1: trying to understand what the Supreme Court is doing. So
Speaker 1: what you're saying is that we've come a long way
Speaker 1: from I'm just a bill. I'm just a bill sitting
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill. You know, I respect the classics, David.
Speaker 1: You can also be proud of all your students who
Speaker 1: become law clerks, or you can be proud of the
Speaker 1: students who have come to conquer the world of TikTok
Speaker 1: and basic late night cable variety shows. You know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of pride to you. You
Speaker 1: gotta go where the power is. Right then is the
Speaker 1: Bill Bill Parcels, Bill Belichick coaching tree just greatness? So
Speaker 1: as we as we as we bring it home. I
Speaker 1: have two questions, one about optimism, one about wellness. UM. First,
Speaker 1: optimism with the courts. Are there any specific cases or
Speaker 1: anything that makes you particularly hopeful about the future of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court? You know? And also what are some
Speaker 1: of the changes and what are some of the things
Speaker 1: that people could be doing within our judicial system to
Speaker 1: make it feel a little more judicious? Can you say
Speaker 1: something nice? And if not, how do you make it nice?
Speaker 1: I'll start with choose human? Well, you know, Roy, I'm
Speaker 1: hearing a lot of bitching from you about the justices
Speaker 1: and how you can't they got to do something the commerce.
Speaker 1: But why don't you quick complaining and Supreme Court justus yourself? Huh?
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe maybe get in the ground a little bit
Speaker 1: and do your own work, right. I'll do that. I'll
Speaker 1: get on legal Zoom and start reading some documents and
Speaker 1: get myself together. It all snowballs from there, man, just snowballs. UM.
Speaker 1: David outside of UM helping juven write jokes on the
Speaker 1: Daily show. What can people do, if anything, to change
Speaker 1: the lack of accountability not only within the court, but
Speaker 1: you know, what can we do to help influence Congress
Speaker 1: as well, to try and make the courts something that
Speaker 1: are a little bit nicer. The answer, you know will
Speaker 1: probably not be a surprise, but it's vote right. It
Speaker 1: is vote vote like your rights depend on it. That
Speaker 1: is what will send the strongest message to the court. Uh.
Speaker 1: The court is not the only branch that can protect
Speaker 1: people's rights. The legislatures can, governors can, mayors can you know,
Speaker 1: even prosecutors can, um so, and all of those people
Speaker 1: are for election. So you know, the thing that gives
Speaker 1: me hope is that again, as I referred earlier, the
Speaker 1: history shows that the Court, when it gets out of
Speaker 1: sync with the people, it's legitimacy crumbles and there is
Speaker 1: a course correction. That course correction will happen. I I
Speaker 1: believe um if and only if we who are piste off,
Speaker 1: we who think the courts doing the wrong thing, we
Speaker 1: who care about advancing civil liberties and civil rights for
Speaker 1: the for the most disadvantaged in this country, stand up
Speaker 1: and speak out. And what gives me hope is that
Speaker 1: we are doing that. You know, from the from the
Speaker 1: Women's March, when when when Trump was inaugurated, to the
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter UH protests after George Floyd was killed,
Speaker 1: to the March for Our Lives on gun control. People
Speaker 1: are engaged. Young people are engaged and fighting for the
Speaker 1: rights that they believe in. And all too lily, when
Speaker 1: you do that in a democracy, and you do it
Speaker 1: in a sustained way, working with civil society organizations, that's
Speaker 1: how change happens. So you know, the court is deeply depressing,
Speaker 1: but the political engagement of so many people around civil
Speaker 1: rights and civil liberties today is deeply hopeful. James will
Speaker 1: go around the horn starting with you in this Now
Speaker 1: at the Daily Show, we have serial. Let me explain
Speaker 1: for a second. We have afforded to us, thank you
Speaker 1: to Viacom and Paramount, one of the best serial selections
Speaker 1: in the history of late night. I don't know what
Speaker 1: they're working with at Seth Myers, I don't know what
Speaker 1: they're working with over at Courton, but we got at
Speaker 1: least twenty different boxes of cereal. And when it's a
Speaker 1: long day, I have myself a nice three pm bowl
Speaker 1: of cereal and that's my cigarette. You know, when it
Speaker 1: comes to just being stressed, I just sit in our
Speaker 1: low cafe, little cafe we have, and that's how I relax. James,
Speaker 1: how do you person who runs Scout is blocked full
Speaker 1: of a lot of bad and stressful news. How do
Speaker 1: you deal with stress? How do you what do you
Speaker 1: do to relax on a regular Because I think that's
Speaker 1: an important thing for us to leave our listeners with,
Speaker 1: because we're all stressed about this. What is your routine?
Speaker 1: What is your apple jacks? What is your bowl of
Speaker 1: apple jacks? James? You know what I wish I had
Speaker 1: some apologize. I went down to the patrol this morning
Speaker 1: to have my bowl of cereal and all that was
Speaker 1: left was like this super healthy, protein rich stuff. It was.
Speaker 1: But I'll tell you what I normally do, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, I really like to sort of just step
Speaker 1: away from the Supreme Court and I go to the
Speaker 1: art museums here in d C. The National Gallery, the
Speaker 1: Phillips Collection. I really love looking at, like, you know,
Speaker 1: twentieth century abstract are and it really is a chance
Speaker 1: to just like get away completely from what's going on
Speaker 1: in this Preme Court or so I thought until just
Speaker 1: a couple of days ago when the Supreme Court heard
Speaker 1: this important copyright case about Andy Warhol. And so even
Speaker 1: when I'm looking at modern art, I can't even escape
Speaker 1: sprime court jurisprudence. So maybe none of us can escape.
Speaker 1: But I don't know you what's what's your What do
Speaker 1: you do to relax? Because I know you have a
Speaker 1: child there at the house, so you know, I'm sure
Speaker 1: you have to leave the house. I'll tell you. That's
Speaker 1: how I that's how I get away from from all
Speaker 1: this worry about the future. Man. I just look at
Speaker 1: my kids in the eye, and I just look at
Speaker 1: them and their faces, and they sneeze in my face
Speaker 1: and give me a cold. And then I don't have
Speaker 1: to worry about the Spreme Court anymore because I'm I'm
Speaker 1: trying to get over a cold. And that's I think.
Speaker 1: What that's my way, that's my way, all right, David
Speaker 1: lay it on us. Well, you know the answer. I
Speaker 1: watched the Daily Show. That's the correct answer. That this
Speaker 1: was this is a test, This was a test. Well, look,
Speaker 1: this has been a great conversation and I can't think
Speaker 1: the three of you for coming on and going beyond
Speaker 1: the scenes with us today. Thank you, thank you guys,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Listen to The Daily Show Beyond
Speaker 1: the Scenes on Apple Podcast, the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcast. Watch The Daily Show
Speaker 1: weeknights at eleven central on Comedy Central, and stream full
Speaker 1: episodes anytime on Paramount Plus. This has been a Comedy
Speaker 1: Central podcast